Nigel Lawson

Nigel Lawson

Credentials

Background

Nigel Lawson, recently named Lord Lawson of Blaby, has spent the majority of his professional career involved in British politics and journalism. [1]

Between 1961 and 1970 Lawson served as an editor for The Sunday Telegraph and The Spectator.

In 1974 Lawson was elected a member of parliament for the Conservative party. He held his seat until 1992. As a member of parliament, Lawson was eventually named Chancellor of the Exchequer—the highest economic and financial position in the British government—by Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher. Lawson held this position from 1983-1989.

Currently Lawson contributes guest columns to world newspapers. He is the founder of The Global Warming Policy Foundation, a think-tank skeptical of the science behind anthropogenic (man-made) global warming as well as the policies that are being implemented to curb climate change.

Even though Lawson has no professional credentials in the area of climate change, and is relatively new to the conversation, he has managed to emerge as an “expert” voice on the subject in the media.

According to an interview conducted by The Telegraph in 2008, Lawson states he did not develop an informed interest in climate change until 2005 when he took part in a government committee exploring the economic factors involved in global warming. [2]

Climate skepticism runs deep in the Lawson family. His son Dominic Lawson is a journalist for the British newspaper The Independent. Dominic Lawson has used his columns to question the science behind climate change and criticize the IPCC.

Stance on Climate Change

“Lawson agrees that there has been some global warming over the past hundred years and that increased man-made emissions of carbon dioxide are partly to blame. But he argues that natural causes are more important than commonly agreed and that the science of climate remains in its infancy.” [3]

Key Quotes

“Gradual and moderate warming brings benefits as well as incurring costs. These benefits and costs will not, of course, be felt uniformly throughout the world; the colder regions of the world will be more affected by the benefits, and the hotter regions by the costs.

“But overall, it is far from clear that the inhabitants of the planet as a whole would suffer a significant net cost, or indeed any cost at all.” [Christopher Booker. [2]

Key Deeds

2009

Nigel Lawson founded a climate-change think-tank, The Global Warming Policy Foundation. The GWPF's mission “is to bring reason, integrity and balance to a debate that has become seriously unbalanced, irrationally alarmist, and all too often depressingly intolerant.” [4]

Currently, Benny Peiser is the Director of the GWPF. Peiser has long opposed mainstream science's conclusions about anthropogenic global warming; in 2005 Peiser said he had data which refuted an article published in Science Magazine, claiming 100% of peer-reviewed research papers on climate change agreed with the scientific consensus of global warming. Peiser later revealed he found only one paper that disagreed with the scientific consensus, and that paper was published by the American Association of Petroleum Geologists.

The GWPF chooses not to disclose its funding sources. However, it does state that does not “accept gifts from either energy companies or anyone with a significant interest in an energy company.”

March 8, 2007

Lawson appeared on the Great Global Warming Swindle, a program broadcast on Channel 4 Television on March 8, 2007. According to Tyler Durkin, the writer and director of the program, “global warming is a hoax foisted upon an unsuspecting public by conspiratorial environmentalists.” [5]

Channel 4 received over 265 complaints regarding the accuracy of Swindle, including complaints from The IPCC and Sir David King about how they were portrayed on the program. [6]

Complaints included a 180+ page document (PDF) assembled by numerous writers, scientists, and two former chairs of the IPCC that accused the program of “displaying erroneous or artificially manipulated graphs, and presenting incorrect, misleading, or incomplete opinions and facts on the science of global warming and the related economics.” [7]

The document accuses Nigel Lawson, who is quoted on the program as saying that “there is such intolerance of any dissenting voice” against mainstream views on global warming, of inflating his credentials when he is described as an “expert” on climate science issues.

When Ofcom reviewed the complaints, they found that Channel 4 broke impartiality guidelines misrepresented statements by former British government scientist David King. Ofcom further found that the film unfairly treated the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and MIT professor Carl Wunsch.

The Stern Review was a report commissioned by the British government,whose conclusions not only supported the findings of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) and the science behind the theory of anthropogenic global warming, but also advocated immediate action to mitigate the serious global threat climate change poses.

Lawson was a member of the House of Lords Economic Affairs Select Committee when it launched a skeptical report on climate change released to coincide with the 2005 G8 conference. [8]

The report, titled “The Economics of Climate Change,” claims that there are “positive aspects to global warming” and describes how “the science of human-induced warming remains uncertain.”

It is also critical of the IPCC, describing the UN as being “influenced by political considerations” with regards to climate change science. The report is adamant that the Kyoto Protocol “will make little difference to future rates of warming.”

Democracy is utterly dependent upon an electorate that is accurately informed. In promoting climate change denial (and often denying their responsibility for doing so) industry has done more than endanger the environment. It has undermined democracy.

There is a vast difference between putting forth a point of view, honestly held, and intentionally sowing the seeds of confusion. Free speech does not include the right to deceive. Deception is not a point of view. And the right to disagree does not include a right to intentionally subvert the public awareness.